>Obviously not, so if Facebook is not in violation of anti-discrimination laws then why can't they ban people? You should be able to guess what my answer will

>Obviously not, so if Facebook is not in violation of anti-discrimination laws then why can't they ban people? You should be able to guess what my answer will be here. They should not be allowed to ban people on the basis of their political speech because a large portion of the public political debate currently occurs on Facebook, and people lacking the ability to meaningfully participate in the public political debate is a precursor to real world violence, the avoidance of which is more important than Facebook's private property rights. >that doesn't mean that the logical mechanics of property rights are completely obliterated Telling Facebook they can't ban people on the basis of their political speech is not an obliteration of Facebook's property rights. >they're just utterly unimportant and not something society should care to ensure is available to the masses. I'm not sure what you mean by unimportant. Do you mean to claim that peoples' opinions cannot be influenced by them? If Facebook allows memes from one side of the political debate, but bans memes from the other side, do you believe that would have no influence on e.g. the outcome of elections? >There is nothing important about political discussion on Facebook Are you suggesting that what takes place on Facebook has no ability to influence e.g. the outcome of elections? Why then do politicians invest resources there? >What does that prove except that people use Facebook? It proves that Facebook is currently a place where people are influenced by political content. >nobody is harmed by not being able to participate in triviality That's absurd on its face. Losing access to Facebook results in losing access to a massive audience, which results in harm to people whose livelihood depends on access to the audience there, such as political commentators that rely on individual donations, e.g. Alex Jones. More broadly, given the obvious fact that political speech is one way in which people advocate for their interests, taking away their ability to meaningfully participate in the political debate reduces their ability to advocate for their interests. >or to file a petition and gather signatures If Facebook banned all links to your petition, would that not have a substantial effect on your ability to gather signatures? >lacking access to Facebook is absolutely not even close to the same as lacking access to "the public political conversation" Lacking access to Facebook quite obviously reduces a person's ability to meaningfully participate in the public political conversation. >but the political discussions on Facebook are wholly unimportant What exactly do you mean by "unimportant"? Tens and tens of millions of people are exposed to political ideas on Facebook, compared to the virtually none that sit in on city council meetings or contact their representatives, and the low numbers of millions soaking up the output of any given corporate media outlet. Do you think that is "unimportant"?